Chennai: Unrepentant and refusing to apologise for his trenchant tweets and comments, YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar has been convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. Now, he is cooling his heels in the Cuddalore Central Prison. None was surprised at his sentencing, but it has once again opened up the debate on the higher judiciary's contempt powers.
From a constable of the Vigilance Directorate, remaining under suspension for more than a decade, Shankar has earned popularity as well as notoriety. His appointment itself was on compassionate grounds when his father died in harness. But, this was not the first time he had stepped into prison. Earlier, he had been arrested following his suspension in the illegal taping controversy.
After his release, he took the avatar of a whistleblower and one of his revelations was the Radia tapes in the 2G scam. But, later on, his credibility took a beating as he seldom gave evidence for his purported exposés. “He would be asked for evidence if he were to function as a mainstream journalist. He would not write what he had posted on his blog or his YouTube channel. He is smart. But, he knows what he is writing and does it deliberately,” says senior journalist Kalyan Raman, who likens Shankar's narrative style to that of tea shop conversation or gossiping.
Also read: Well-known TN Youtuber convicted for criminal contempt, gets 6 months prison term
The present suo motu contempt case was initiated by Justice GR Swaminathan since Shankar had made a personal insinuation against him. The original petition was about Shankar imputing motives and bias to Justice Swaminathan for his ideological affiliation in the judge freeing YouTuber Maridhas charged with vilifying the DMK government in the context of General Bipin Rawat's death in a chopper crash.
With Shankar refusing to back down, the bench comprising Justice B Pugalendhi decided to take up his other comments and writing taking on the judiciary deemed as scandalous. The court also referred to the famous contempt case against communist leader EMS Namboothiripad. But, Shankar made it clear that he would continue his writings on reforming the judiciary and 'rid it of corruption' after coming out of prison.
“For Shankar, Justice Swaminathan is an example of how many judges adhere to Hindutva ideology. But, he has crossed the Lakshman Rekha by attacking individuals. Yet, he is no lone wolf and has backers and connections,” maintains Raman adding that he has thrown the first stone at the Judiciary. "It is open season on social media. There are no holy cows. If others were to follow him, we might see a churning in the judiciary as well,” he quips.
Support for Shankar has been pouring in on social media with many viewing the sentencing to be harsh and raising questions on the need and relevance of contempt powers.
“The court could have been magnanimous since magnanimity is not a weakness. Many eminent lawyers and former judges have been writing about the rot in the judiciary. Any conviction for criminal contempt is unwarranted. Nothing can scandalise a court with judges of integrity, but only a compromised institution with tainted individuals,” argues senior journalist K Venkataramanan.
